One would hope that Bryan would have learned from Singapore that many of his policies are wrong and that Singapore is better rather than it should change.
Their drug and immigration policies are for instance are superior to Bryan’s ideology.
Singapores censorship may actually increase the Overton Window of idea discussion by excluding low value speech (I can for instance discuss genetics in Singapore which I can’t in America). Events since 2013 certainly validate this, the “free speech” west descended into cancel culture.
I don’t really know enough about Singapores military situation to judge conscription, though small states often rely on it for reasons of basic math (see Israel, Taiwan).
Thousands of people being deprived of liberty for a perfectly victimless crime with minimal negative externalities seems like an atrocious result for me.
"perfectly victimless crime with minimal negative externalities"
This is not an empirically supportable claim.
I would guess by "soft drugs" you mean alcohol and pot.
Obviously these things do have victims, usually the consumer themselves. As to externalities the negative impact both drugs have on society are very well documented. Crime, divorce, domestic abuse, unemployability, wasted potential, health problems, government dependency, automobile accidents, etc. The "cost" of drug use has been pretty well documented.
The only real argument is that enforcement costs exceed welfare gains from banning the substances. But Singapore proves this isn't true.
For a substance with very deep roots in their culture, alcohol, Singapore legalized but heavily taxes and regulates alcohol to reduce consumption and externalities (alcohol is much more expensive there then here). In Muslim parts of the city they ban it outright.
For pot, which had no natural demand in their society to begin with, they have made sure to prevent such a vice market from developing in the first place. If nobody wants pot because they have never tried it and it's not available, then there is no demand to fuel a black market.
* Singapore uses libel and slander laws to quash political competition. Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party was bankrupted by the Lee family for defamation. Conveniently, bankrupt people are barred from running for office in Singapore for several years!
* The personal IS political. Imagine, if in America, politicians were barred from making personal attacks on the other candidates. Only attack their policies. This would hardly feel democratic. And, besides which, people matter. Candidates could actually agree on the same policy. But one could be mopre corrupt, lazier and more ineffective than the other, making them less successful at implementing said policy. Opposing candidates, in a democracy, need the freedom to point this out.
* Singapore limits free speech a LOT actually. Protests and demonstrations are banned almost everywhere except at speakers corner in Hong Lim park. Even in Hong Lim Park, you need a permit to stage a demonstration. Permits are denied if any participant in the demonstration is not a Singapore citizen or if the speech or demonstration has anything to do with religion. I think Singapore is deathly afraid that its muslim minority is gonna flip their lid at the slightest provocation. But, to give you an example of how ridiculously this is interpreted: Dr Chee Soon Juan was denied a permit to make a speech at Speaker's corner about how muslim girls should be allowed to wear the hijab in Singaporean schools!
* Singapore uses a blatant form of gerry-mandering called Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs). They group several districts together and candidates from the various parties run as a slate. The purported reason for this: Increase minority representation in parliament. At least one member of each party's slate in a GRC, must be a minority (not Chinese). But this reduces political minority representation in Parliament. For example, if there were 5 districts where 4 voted PAP and one voted SDP, combine them into a GRC and it's winner take all! 80% voted PAP? All 5 Members of Parliament for the GRC are now PAP, lah!
* Yes, Singaporeans like it that way. But they are tools.
On the contrary, it is the idea that there are any democracies that is the confusion. There are only popularly-elected oligarchies, with the populaces being highly controlled by state propaganda and censorship. A prime example of such state propaganda is the assertion that state-subjects have so-called “representative democracy”: this makes about as much sense as saying that slaves have “representative self-ownership”.
Democracy is a failsafe against catastrophic failure. People in North Korea would sure like some democracy. If the PAP ever went off the deep end, the people of Singapore would be glad to live in a democracy and be able to vote them out.
Yes, when a state is functioning well enough people don't care too much about "throw the bums out without a violent revolution" being an option.
If you judge Singapore by the quality of life, the economic environment, the educational system, crime rate is very difficult to find flaws or weaknesses. It is not a perfect democracy at all but the results are stunning. The issue of city-states is always about who is in charge: you fly 3.5hr north and you land in HK, once a fantastic place, now much less vibrant with a growing Chinese grip on everything. Western countries think of themselves as democracies because of the formal voting system but in reality they are anarchic places where rule of law is largely gone.
In recent years they have been changing their tune vis a vis the effectiveness of their own technocratic competencies, the following passage is from the book 'The Limits of Authoritarian Governance in Singapore's Developmental State':
"Retreat from Technocracy: The GE2015 election campaign opened just a few days after the end of the SG50 celebrations. Early in the campaign Lee Hsien Loong gave the rhetoric of exceptionalism another couple of airings, but then as the focus shifted from the theatre of past glory to mundane municipal and political issues, he quietly locked it away in a bottom drawer. Significantly he replaced it with more mundane claims of a high level of managerial competence that better reflected the political and administrative realities of 2015. Lee’s apology of 2011 had mortally wounded the language of technocracy and despite the theatre that led up to his celebration of the achievements of an earlier generation, it was almost inevitable that the rhetoric of exceptionalism and technocratic perfection would be replaced by a more defensible and less hyperbolic competence-based rationale. The new version has in fact turned out to be so modest that it is nearly indistinguishable from mere managerialism, which is attested by the fact that during the 2015 election campaign, the government’s main campaign focus was on the standards of management in town councils—the local bodies that manage housing estates under the watch of the Ministry of National Development (MND). The main force of the PAP’s campaign artillery focussed on the alleged mismanagement of the sole town council that was in opposition hands—the Workers’ Party-run Aljunied-HougangPunggol East Town Council (AHPETC)—which was held in sharp contrast to the smooth management of the other Town Councils that were run by the PAP (Today Online, 8 September 2015). The sad reality of the newly limited scope of the government’s claims was on display for all to see in Lee Hsien Loong’s final rally speech of the 2015 campaign. On that occasion perfectionist hyperbole was replaced with the presentation of a long list of government failures and problem issues, M. D. BARR 137 followed by a claim that ‘we are making progress’ in fixing them (Lee Hsien Loong 2015). The high point of his speech turned out to be a clumsy, halting historical claim to being representative: Do you think we could have been the government for 50-something years and won eight elections without having … or more, more than eight, probably now 10, 12 elections … without talking to people, without having a base in the people, without understanding what people need, without reflecting what people aspire to? He may have had a point, but this is a long way from the visionary claims of being the near-perfect administrators, planners and leaders with which he opened his prime ministership in 2004. In previous elections, the government’s defensive speeches were likely to claim that this minister or that minister was indispensable and that the country should not contemplate dispensing with his services. Both Lees have defended ministers in these terms in the past, but Lee Hsien Loong has sensibly refrained from such rhetoric ever since Goh Chok Tong defended Foreign Minister George Yeo in 2011 by arguing that he was not as incompetent as Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, Transport Minister Raymond Lim or National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan (Today May 3 2011). Yeo famously lost his seat and Lee made the other three (and Goh) stand down after the election"
The idea of “democracy”, at least as implement in the USA and perhaps many other countries, is a farce. Our democracy has declined as the population has declined. Even ignoring our elite oligarchy, why should a vote of the ignorant and indigent count as much as mine? All that is required to vote in this country is that you can fog a mirror—and that is not a requirement in some States.
Athens never held this concept, nor for that matter did our Founders—and now we see why—our current dismal state of affairs. To assume that a corrupt and broken system can repair itself is absurd. All we can do is ride it down to collapse and then reconstitute a workable system sufficient for the modern age—assuming we survive.
If Singapore is a non-democracy, give me more of that sweet action….
One would hope that Bryan would have learned from Singapore that many of his policies are wrong and that Singapore is better rather than it should change.
Their drug and immigration policies are for instance are superior to Bryan’s ideology.
Singapores censorship may actually increase the Overton Window of idea discussion by excluding low value speech (I can for instance discuss genetics in Singapore which I can’t in America). Events since 2013 certainly validate this, the “free speech” west descended into cancel culture.
I don’t really know enough about Singapores military situation to judge conscription, though small states often rely on it for reasons of basic math (see Israel, Taiwan).
Singapore's stance on soft drugs use is completely insane.
No, it's perfect. Just look at the results.
Thousands of people being deprived of liberty for a perfectly victimless crime with minimal negative externalities seems like an atrocious result for me.
"perfectly victimless crime with minimal negative externalities"
This is not an empirically supportable claim.
I would guess by "soft drugs" you mean alcohol and pot.
Obviously these things do have victims, usually the consumer themselves. As to externalities the negative impact both drugs have on society are very well documented. Crime, divorce, domestic abuse, unemployability, wasted potential, health problems, government dependency, automobile accidents, etc. The "cost" of drug use has been pretty well documented.
The only real argument is that enforcement costs exceed welfare gains from banning the substances. But Singapore proves this isn't true.
For a substance with very deep roots in their culture, alcohol, Singapore legalized but heavily taxes and regulates alcohol to reduce consumption and externalities (alcohol is much more expensive there then here). In Muslim parts of the city they ban it outright.
For pot, which had no natural demand in their society to begin with, they have made sure to prevent such a vice market from developing in the first place. If nobody wants pot because they have never tried it and it's not available, then there is no demand to fuel a black market.
I think a few more things you should consider:
* Singapore uses libel and slander laws to quash political competition. Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party was bankrupted by the Lee family for defamation. Conveniently, bankrupt people are barred from running for office in Singapore for several years!
* The personal IS political. Imagine, if in America, politicians were barred from making personal attacks on the other candidates. Only attack their policies. This would hardly feel democratic. And, besides which, people matter. Candidates could actually agree on the same policy. But one could be mopre corrupt, lazier and more ineffective than the other, making them less successful at implementing said policy. Opposing candidates, in a democracy, need the freedom to point this out.
* Singapore limits free speech a LOT actually. Protests and demonstrations are banned almost everywhere except at speakers corner in Hong Lim park. Even in Hong Lim Park, you need a permit to stage a demonstration. Permits are denied if any participant in the demonstration is not a Singapore citizen or if the speech or demonstration has anything to do with religion. I think Singapore is deathly afraid that its muslim minority is gonna flip their lid at the slightest provocation. But, to give you an example of how ridiculously this is interpreted: Dr Chee Soon Juan was denied a permit to make a speech at Speaker's corner about how muslim girls should be allowed to wear the hijab in Singaporean schools!
* Singapore uses a blatant form of gerry-mandering called Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs). They group several districts together and candidates from the various parties run as a slate. The purported reason for this: Increase minority representation in parliament. At least one member of each party's slate in a GRC, must be a minority (not Chinese). But this reduces political minority representation in Parliament. For example, if there were 5 districts where 4 voted PAP and one voted SDP, combine them into a GRC and it's winner take all! 80% voted PAP? All 5 Members of Parliament for the GRC are now PAP, lah!
* Yes, Singaporeans like it that way. But they are tools.
On the contrary, it is the idea that there are any democracies that is the confusion. There are only popularly-elected oligarchies, with the populaces being highly controlled by state propaganda and censorship. A prime example of such state propaganda is the assertion that state-subjects have so-called “representative democracy”: this makes about as much sense as saying that slaves have “representative self-ownership”.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/democracy-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search
https://jclester.substack.com/p/the-state-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search
Democracy is a failsafe against catastrophic failure. People in North Korea would sure like some democracy. If the PAP ever went off the deep end, the people of Singapore would be glad to live in a democracy and be able to vote them out.
Yes, when a state is functioning well enough people don't care too much about "throw the bums out without a violent revolution" being an option.
There is a big difference between some bad policies and North Korea. Germany got a good example of the lack of democracy during the world wars.
If you judge Singapore by the quality of life, the economic environment, the educational system, crime rate is very difficult to find flaws or weaknesses. It is not a perfect democracy at all but the results are stunning. The issue of city-states is always about who is in charge: you fly 3.5hr north and you land in HK, once a fantastic place, now much less vibrant with a growing Chinese grip on everything. Western countries think of themselves as democracies because of the formal voting system but in reality they are anarchic places where rule of law is largely gone.
In recent years they have been changing their tune vis a vis the effectiveness of their own technocratic competencies, the following passage is from the book 'The Limits of Authoritarian Governance in Singapore's Developmental State':
"Retreat from Technocracy: The GE2015 election campaign opened just a few days after the end of the SG50 celebrations. Early in the campaign Lee Hsien Loong gave the rhetoric of exceptionalism another couple of airings, but then as the focus shifted from the theatre of past glory to mundane municipal and political issues, he quietly locked it away in a bottom drawer. Significantly he replaced it with more mundane claims of a high level of managerial competence that better reflected the political and administrative realities of 2015. Lee’s apology of 2011 had mortally wounded the language of technocracy and despite the theatre that led up to his celebration of the achievements of an earlier generation, it was almost inevitable that the rhetoric of exceptionalism and technocratic perfection would be replaced by a more defensible and less hyperbolic competence-based rationale. The new version has in fact turned out to be so modest that it is nearly indistinguishable from mere managerialism, which is attested by the fact that during the 2015 election campaign, the government’s main campaign focus was on the standards of management in town councils—the local bodies that manage housing estates under the watch of the Ministry of National Development (MND). The main force of the PAP’s campaign artillery focussed on the alleged mismanagement of the sole town council that was in opposition hands—the Workers’ Party-run Aljunied-HougangPunggol East Town Council (AHPETC)—which was held in sharp contrast to the smooth management of the other Town Councils that were run by the PAP (Today Online, 8 September 2015). The sad reality of the newly limited scope of the government’s claims was on display for all to see in Lee Hsien Loong’s final rally speech of the 2015 campaign. On that occasion perfectionist hyperbole was replaced with the presentation of a long list of government failures and problem issues, M. D. BARR 137 followed by a claim that ‘we are making progress’ in fixing them (Lee Hsien Loong 2015). The high point of his speech turned out to be a clumsy, halting historical claim to being representative: Do you think we could have been the government for 50-something years and won eight elections without having … or more, more than eight, probably now 10, 12 elections … without talking to people, without having a base in the people, without understanding what people need, without reflecting what people aspire to? He may have had a point, but this is a long way from the visionary claims of being the near-perfect administrators, planners and leaders with which he opened his prime ministership in 2004. In previous elections, the government’s defensive speeches were likely to claim that this minister or that minister was indispensable and that the country should not contemplate dispensing with his services. Both Lees have defended ministers in these terms in the past, but Lee Hsien Loong has sensibly refrained from such rhetoric ever since Goh Chok Tong defended Foreign Minister George Yeo in 2011 by arguing that he was not as incompetent as Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, Transport Minister Raymond Lim or National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan (Today May 3 2011). Yeo famously lost his seat and Lee made the other three (and Goh) stand down after the election"
The idea of “democracy”, at least as implement in the USA and perhaps many other countries, is a farce. Our democracy has declined as the population has declined. Even ignoring our elite oligarchy, why should a vote of the ignorant and indigent count as much as mine? All that is required to vote in this country is that you can fog a mirror—and that is not a requirement in some States.
Athens never held this concept, nor for that matter did our Founders—and now we see why—our current dismal state of affairs. To assume that a corrupt and broken system can repair itself is absurd. All we can do is ride it down to collapse and then reconstitute a workable system sufficient for the modern age—assuming we survive.
If Singapore is a non-democracy, give me more of that sweet action….
Interesting.